“It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. He turned America around rather than lecturing the nation about what was wrong with it.

Obama has America full of malaise and more, because he, too, is a completely failed leader with zero ideas:

September 29:

“The way I think about it is, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track.”

November 12:

“But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.”

See the “Jimmy Obama” video for more:

Obama has actually surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst failure this country has ever known:

You’ve no doubt heard the comparisons before, but now it’s official: U.S. President Barack Obama is a worse president than Jimmy Carter.

At least that’s the opinion of the American people, as conveyed to Gallup pollsters.

“President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history,” writes Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report.

This list obviously doesn’t include John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Kennedy was polling at 58 percent in a poll taken nine days before his death, however. The list also doesn’t include former president Gerald Ford, who left office in January 1977 after serving less than two-and-a-half years as president.

Amazingly, despite his historically awful approval ratings Obama is still even money to defeat even the most “electable” Republican challenger – which should tell you all you need to know about the ideological bankruptcy of the current crop of GOP contenders.

As for the last paragraph, I agree – to a limited degree. I’ve been appalled at how pathetic the GOP field has largely become. Mitt Romney is a pandering flip flopper who is only surpassed by Barack Obama for saying one thing and then saying another.

As bad as Mitt Romney is, he won’t have much of a problem blowing Obama out of the water on the charge of flip flopping. To call Obama a “serial liar” has the defect of being unfair to serial liars. But that said, Mitt Romney is truly pathetic. And it makes me sad that he’s my party’s probable nominee.

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

And I’m only slightly happier about his candidacy than I am about Mitt Romney’s.

Fwiw, I don’t trust Mitt Romney because he is the kind of man who will tell you whatever you want him to tell you to get elected; and he’ll say one thing and say another and then deny that he ever contradicted himself. I don’t trust Newt Gingrich because the man is brilliant – but seems to desperately want everyone to celebrate that brilliance. Just for one example, if he doesn’t tow the line on the global warming agenda (see him sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s couch above), the media will depict his view as ignorant in ten thousand different stories. And I seriously wonder if the man’s ego can withstand the criticism of the “intelligentsia.”

There comes a point of no return for a nation. And one of the things that herald that point of no return is a nation’s inability to recognize that their leader is going to lead them straight to hell. I fear that we’ve reached that point of no return in this our very own God damn America.

Such a nation will go down hard. And it deserves to go down hard.

Barack Obama is an abject failure. Four more years of Obama is tantamount to a vote for the United States of America to slit its own throat and then stagger around like a headless chicken before it collapses for good.

The problem is that the worst failure in American history will have a billion dollar political warchest from all the crony capitalist deals he’s made to rob America blind. And that when America needed one most, the GOP couldn’t produce another Ronald Reagan.

Instead, we have the choice between a couple of guys who won’t be that good at getting America back to where it needs to be versus a complete failure who will utterly implode this country.

Will Americans actually vote to re-elect the worst president in history? Will we actually vote for a guy who is so bad that he actually makes even Jimmy Carter look good?

All I can say is, “Lord, please don’t give us the leaders we deserve.”

Chris Christie is well-known for his viral, tell-it-like-it-is clips. It’s part of the reason so many conservatives love him. And if they loved him before, they will likely fawn all over him again when they see his latest gem. During a press conference yesterday the New Jersey Gov. lashed out at Obama over the failure of the debt supercommittee: “What the hell are we paying you for?”

Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

[…]

“If he wanted to run for Senate again and just be 1 of a 100, I’m sure he could have gotten reelected over and over again in Illinois,” he said. “He’s the one in Washington and he’s got to get something done here. And it’s not good enough just to say, ‘Well, I’ll get it done after the election.’”

You can watch it below (which also includes some comments on the Occupy movement and the Tea Party):

It wasn’t an attempt to lead; it wasn’t an attempt to help the American people in any way, shape or form. It was the act of a failed president who can’t run on what he’s done, and so is running on blame and demonization and demagoguery. And like everything else Obama, it was based entirely on lies.

Obama has demonstrated that the only thing Obama knows how to do is blame everyone else for his failure and the failure of the United States under his regime.

Great Quote!
Deer Hunting Story…even if you don’t care about hunting…Gotta Love Ted!Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting. The journalist asked, ‘What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, ‘Are you my friend?’ or is it ‘Are you the one who killed my brother?

Nugent replied, ‘Deer aren’t capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.’

It’s fascinating to try to figure out whatever you want to call the “thought process” of the diseased liberal mind.

It’s fine for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party to abandon the white working class; it’s racist for conservatives to point out the fact that Obama and Democrats are doing what they are in fact doing. Slate’s David Weigel is disturbed that Fox Nation would title the following the New York Times piece as “Obama Campaign Plans To Abandon White Working Class.” Even as he himself quotes Edsall as pointing out that:

… preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment… and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

On Weigel’s own quote from Edsel and on his own acknowledgment, of course, Democrats are clearly pushing a race-based strategy. And completely abandoning working class whites.

It is also a strategy of egghead intellectual ivory tower white plantation owner “massahs” who are in “coalition” with poor, stupid, ignorant black and brown-skinned inferiors who need whitey massah’s benevolent wisdom and direction lest they degenerate back into the apelike savagery from which they so-recently shambled from. Because when you see a phrase describing “voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment,” think “elitist white massah.”

Another, possibly even bigger admission, that comes out of the piece below is the tacit admission that every single time a Democrat claimed to represent the working class, they were in actual fact lying demagogues. Because “working class Americans” largely vote REPUBLICAN and HAVE BEEN VOTING REPUBLICAN. That acknowledgement largely doesn’t sell well, so liberal demon-possessed cockroaches in the media and political circles have created a fake truth rather than admit the truth that the Democrat Party today is composed of: pseudo-intellectual white Marxists, hypocrite white crony capitalists who demand government control so that they can benefit from all the pork and boondoggles such government largesse creates, and parasites of all colors who will gladly sell their souls (not to mention their votes) for another welfare check. And of course useful idiots (also of all races) who haven’t ever once ever been able to think for themselves.

Versus the people who want to be self-sufficient and not worship at the altar of government control, regulation and subsidy, who left the Democrat Party twenty years ago.

Democrats don’t give a damn about the working class; they piss on the working class. The only “working class” (deceitfully defined by the mainstream media as “THE” working class) are communist unions who exploit all the other actual workers by forcing them to provide union workers with enormous and unfair compensation and benefit packages that will ultimately implode America.

A third point is that this isn’t about “intelligence” or even so much about “education.” This is about the Democrats pursuing the white elitists who have benefitted from “the system” created by crony capitalism in the promise that if these keep voting Democrat, they will ergo keep benefitting from the crony capitalism socialism that Democrats will continue imposing.

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be: Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

Allow me to rephrase the Democrat strategy in a nutshell: “If you vote for us, we Democrats are such cynical, un-American slime that we will take what somebody else worked for and earned and we will “redistribute” it to you. After, that is, your white superiors who do your thinking for you take a giant chunk of all that money they used the force of government to steal for themselves.”

This is why I rightly and correctly call Democrats things like “traitors” and “cockroaches.”

Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don’t believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What’s more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

“A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months,” the study found. “These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.”

It’s why doing something as innocuous as going to a Fourth of July parade makes people Republican:

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

But there are vile people in this country who hate America and despise Americans even as they demand to parasitically leech off of those Americans. And these vermin call themselves “Democrats.”

Thomas Edsell in his concluding sentences says of this racist-based Democrat strategy:

“One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics…”

I am reminded of Jesus’ warning concerning the last days: race shall rise against race. Which of course is exactly what liberals want, as long as they can cynically exploit that conflict.

Mark my words: all the people who vote for Obama and the Democrat Party will one day soon be gladly voting for the Antichrist-beast from the pages of the Book of Revelation.

In God damn America, the economy is a shambles – and Obama’s “strategy” is to go around the country blaming everybody who IS NOT the president for his failure.

It’s kind of funny how that works: in 2008, everything was George Bush’s fault because he was the president – even though both the House and the Senate (2 out of 3 political branches of government) had been firmly in Democrat control for the previous two years. Now the Republicans have one branch (out of 3) of government and they’re responsible for everything. Which is the result of God damn America in media propaganda.

In 946 days, Obama has increased the national debt by $4,022,412,621,434.77 or $4.02 trillion.

That amounts to $4,252,021,798.56 per day ($4.25 billion).

When the debt increases another $877,587,378,565.23 ($877.58 billion), the debt accumulated under Obama’s presidency will equal the debt accumulated under Bush’s two terms.

Obviously, this can change, but barring some sudden shift in the federal government’s borrowing and spending habits, this milestone will be reached in 206 days from August 23, 2011. That would be March 15, 2012.

But yeah, clearly Bush was the problem.

If spending continues at the normal pace through Inauguration Day 2013, it would add an additional $1,326,630,801,150.72 ($1.32 trillion) to the debt total.

Obama will have, in one term, raised the national debt by $6.22 trillion, 22 percent more than George W. Bush did in two terms.

Imagine how much time Obama’s successor will spend explaining how they inherited this mess…

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling.

We deserve it all, of course. America deserves to collapse, and her children deserve to starve in the ruins. Because we were so depraved and so foolish we elected the most wicked man in our country’s history – and could actually do so AGAIN.

But I’m digressing, aren’t I?

There’s another feature of God damn America that I found particularly outrageous: illegal immigrant drug gang thugs are prowling around on U.S. soil targeting U.S. Border Patrol officers – with weapons that Obama gave them:

Five illegal immigrants armed with at least two AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole known as Mesquite Seep just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and one U.S. agent was killed, records show.

A now-sealed federal grand jury indictment in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry says the Mexican nationals were “patrolling” the rugged desert area of Peck Canyon at about 11:15 p.m. on Dec. 14 with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

At least two of the Mexicans carried their assault rifles “at the ready position,” one of several details about the attack showing that Mexican smugglers are becoming more aggressive on the U.S. side of the border.

According to the indictment, the Mexicans were “patrolling the area in single-file formation” a dozen miles northwest of the border town of Nogales and — in the darkness of the Arizona night — opened fire on four Border Patrol agents after the agents identified themselves in Spanish as police officers.

Two AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene came from the failed Fast and Furious operation.

Using thermal binoculars, one of the agents determined that at least two of the Mexicans were carrying rifles, but according to an affidavit in the case by FBI agent Scott Hunter, when the Mexicans did not drop their weapons as ordered, two agents used their shotguns to fire “less than lethal” beanbags at them.

At least one of the Mexicans opened fire and, according to the affidavit, Terry, a 40-year-old former U.S. Marine, was shot in the back. A Border Patrol shooting-incident report said that Terry called out, “I’m hit,” and then fell to the ground, a bullet having pierced his aorta. “I can’t feel my legs,” Terry told one of the agents who cradled him. “I think I’m paralyzed.”

Bleeding profusely, he died at the scene.

After the initial shots, two agents returned fire, hitting Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, 33, in the abdomen and leg. The others fled. The FBI affidavit said Osorio-Arellanes admitted during an interview that all five of the Mexicans were armed.

Peck Canyon is a notorious drug-smuggling corridor.

Osorio-Arellanes initially was charged with illegal entry, but that case was dismissed when the indictment was handed up. It named Osorio-Arellanes on a charge of second-degree murder, but did not identify him as the likely shooter, saying only that Osorio-Arellanes and others whose names were blacked out “did unlawfully kill with malice aforethought United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while Agent Terry was engaged in … his official duties.”

The indictment also noted that Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix in 2006 of felony aggravated assault, had been detained twice in 2010 as an illegal immigrant, and had been returned to Mexico repeatedly.

Bill Brooks, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acting southwest border field branch chief, referred inquiries to the FBI, which is conducting the investigation. The FBI declined to comment.

The case against Osorio-Arellanes and others involved in the shooting has since been sealed, meaning that neither the public nor the media has access to any evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which is prosecuting the case, would confirm only that it was sealed. Also sealed was the judge’s reason for sealing the case.

In addition to doing everything he can do to protect his lackey at the Department of Injustice, Eric Holder – who is clearly lying and covering up this fiasco – Obama also promoted all the principles involved with letting the guns walk to Mexico into the hands of drug cartels to insure they won’t testify against him.

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

– and then he did it anyway. Because this is God damn America now. And that’s what happens in God damn America. And so what if it’s un-American (“that’s not how our system works”), anti-democratic (“that’s not how our democracy functions”) and unconstitutional (“that’s not how our Constitution is written”)??? Democrats piss on ALL of that stuff every single day of their cockroach lives.

Here’s how Obama has “protected” America – and it makes me want to puke:

“Pentagon officials are pushing back against cutting any more beyond the $450 billion they’ve already been asked to make, but at half the federal government’s entire discretionary budget — and growing — the defense budget is an obvious place to keep cutting.”

Now Obama is demanding that the military be cut by another $600 billion on top of that $450 billion. He wants to preside over the destruction of America’s military strength. And he is succeeding in his failure.

One of the characteristics of “God damn America” is that we would have a president who is determined to gut our national security when we need it the most.

Which is precisely why Obama is trying to gut our military when we need it the most; he is the epitome and the embodiment of God damn America.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned of the possible damage to national security with a supercommittee failure. That warning is echoed by leaders of every service and by others.

They are worried because the same Budget Control Act that gives unprecedented power to the special panel of six Republicans and six Democrats also comes with what Panetta calls a “doomsday mechanism” in case a majority of committee members refuse to reach a deal.

The mechanism — sequestration — forces future defense budgets and some popular entitlement programs to take across-the-board cuts. For defense, the deepest cut would occur in 2013, followed by automatic cuts of up to $55 billion a year for eight more years. This would be on top of $465 billion in defense cuts already planned over the next decade.

Recently, Panetta laid out in new detail what will befall defense programs if “maximum” sequestration is triggered so defense cuts total almost $1 trillion over the decade.

“The impacts…would be devastating,” Panetta wrote. In fiscal 2013, assuming the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel accounts from automatic cuts, a 23-percent cut “would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program” of the Department of Defense, leaving “most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable — you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building.”

Many civilian workers would be furloughed, Panetta said.

“The situation does not get better” beyond 2013, he added, with cuts of up to $100 billion a year possible compared to the 2012 defense budget.

“Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history,” Panetta wrote.

Wartime funding for Afghanistan would not be directly impacted, the secretary explained, but war efforts would suffer.

“Contracting personnel would be cut, resulting in delays in the contracts and the contract oversight that support the war. Payroll personnel would be cut, resulting in late payments to wartime vendors, and legal and policy support would be disrupted,” Panetta advised.

It won’t be long before Iran gets the nuclear bomb and the means to deliver that bomb. The day they do, they will be able to launch a wave of international terrorism and they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz. With impunity.

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policyPresidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

It’s not enough to say that they were completely wrong. They were DEAD wrong. They were TRAITOR wrong.

Meanwhile, on top of Iran moving full-speed ahead in developing nuclear weapons, Russia just threatened the United States with a clear act of war because they understand that Barack Hussein Obama is a feckless puke who is dismantling our ability to stand up and fight as quickly as he possibly can:

MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday that Russia will target the American missile defense system in Europe with its missiles if Moscow cannot reach an agreement with Washington and NATO on how the system will be built and operated.

Russia just threatened Obama with World War III unless Obama backs down like the pencil-necked little coward they know he is.

Even during the height of the Soviet Union’s power, Russia would never have DARED to say anything that threatening to Ronald Reagan.

But then again, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a weak, pathetic, gutless fool who despised the United States of America.

And the Russians knew that Ronald Wilson Reagan – unlike Barack Hussein Obama – would stand up for the United States in a strong, powerful way.

This Super Committee was designed to fail from the very start. And lo and behold, the Demgagogue-in-Chief crafted his campaign on running against a do-nothing Congress.

It has now been 935 days since Democrats have bothered to pass any kind of a budget whatsoever. And we were supposed to believe that Democrats gave a flying damn about the budget.

Barack Obama has DOUBLED George Bush’s budget and TRIPLED George Bush’s deficit even as the fool demands FAR MORE SPENDING. And we were supposed to believe that Obama gave a flying damn about spending or deficits.

But that’s the way this rigged game was played. And now the game is played out.

Do you know what the cuts in spending Democrats refused to agree to amounted to? About one percent. They were looking for $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years. Given the fact that, under Obama, the budget has swollen to $3.729 trillion, which is $37.3 trillion over ten years. Which amounts to a 3% cut in spending.

And there was never any way in the hell that Democrats will surely one day end up in that Democrats were ever going to agree to a 3% cut in spending.

Democrats say this is a revenue problem, rather than a spending problem. It doesn’t matter than out the federal budget DOUBLED in ten years, which is to say that we are spending 200% more on government than we were ten years ago.

It doesn’t matter than the top one percent of earners are paying thirty percent of the taxes; “they’re not paying their fair” share no matter how much they’re paying because the people demonizing them are class warfare Marxists.

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

Is that what Obama delivered? is it even close to what Obama delivered? Even according to the liberal New York Times, Obama has fundamentally and profoundly broken his core promise to the American people.

2012 can’t come fast enough. Because Obama is determined to campaign rather than lead or govern. And this country needs to decide if it wants spending and socilaism and European failure, or whether it wants to finally pull its belt tight and cut out-of-control government and pull itself out of this mess.

The beast is coming. He will be a big government liberal who will usher in the global government that liberals have always wanted. And he will turn that big global government into total hell on earth. And no human being who has ever lived will be more responsible for his coming than Barack Obama.

During a news conference for the 19th annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leader’s summit on Sunday, the president gave birthers the answer they have been waiting for, that Obama was not born in America.

The media seemingly focused on the “magic beans” statement Obama made during the speech but completely glossed over the part where the president said of his birth state of Hawaii, “Here in Asia.”

If Hawaii is in Asia, then the president was not born in the U.S. You win, birthers.

Compounding these gaffes with others such as when he stated his approval ratings were dropping but are still “very high in the country of my birth,” one can almost hear the wheels grinding back to life in the birther movement.

Obviously, this is not the first presidential gaffe of the Obama administration. It’s not even the first gaffe this month.

On Nov. 9, Reuters reported Obama complaining of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G-20 summit earlier this month. The president complained, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” not realizing that his microphone was still turned on, according to the report.

What the president’s record is beginning to reveal, in addition to his anti-Israel sentiment is the likely reason he will not release his school records, he is not educated on U.S. nor world history, geography or ethics.

During the 2008 presidential debates, then-Sen. Obama stated, “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Illinois, Obama’s home state, shares a border with Kentucky. To get to Kentucky from Arkansas one would have to travel through Missouri or Tennessee.

Add to this his disparaging comment about the Special Olympics on the “Tonight Show” that his health care reform would bring greater inefficiencies to health care and many others, it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is not the amazing orator he is made out to be.

Speech is not the only area where Obama is clumsy. A video from Fox News show “Redeye” shows Obama attempting to enter the White House through a window he thought was a door. Another video, this time from CNN, shows Obama bouncing his face off of Marine 1, the presidential helicopter in 2009.

Didn’t they make fun of the last guy for stuff like this?

If you’re willing to assume that Obama actually is a native-born American, you still have to deal with the fact that he’s an abject moron.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on the receiving end of a ton of criticism for his self-described “oops” moment when, during a presidential debate last week, he forgot the third federal department he wants to kill. His 53 second brain freeze has made him the star of late night comedy.